When Bulgaria’s Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov said Tuesday that his country would no longer supply arms to Ukraine, for many Bulgarians the announcement felt like déjà vu.
In the months immediately following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Bulgarian officials insisted that “not a single bullet made in Bulgaria” was being shipped to Ukraine.
However, in practice, the country’s defense industry significantly increased exports to intermediaries such as Poland and Czechia, who then supplied Kiev with weapons.
This arrangement allowed Bulgaria’s coalition government at the time to keep one of its pro-Russian constituent parties domestically while continuing military supplies to Ukraine.
What exactly does the ban mean?
The latest restrictions apply only to direct supplies from state stores. This does not prevent Bulgaria’s arms industry from exporting arms to Ukraine.
This raises the question whether the change in policy by former President Rumen Radev and the new government of his Progressive Bulgaria party is aimed at sending a message to Kiev or once again to the part of Bulgarian society that holds pro-Russian views.
During a parliamentary hearing on Wednesday, the defense minister justified the recent decision, saying the country “has no more weapons to deliver” as its stockpile is “below the minimum required level”.
Yet the timing of the announcement created confusion as the minister also acknowledged that Kiev has not requested any new state-provided weapons since he took office in early May.
‘Bulgaria has already given a lot’
As one of Prime Minister Rumen Radev’s closest associates, Stoyanov’s decision reflects a broader line within the government.
While Bulgaria has sent 13 military aid packages to Kiev since the beginning of the war, Radev has consistently opposed further arms deliveries to Ukraine, describing a large European-funded arms initiative in 2025 as a “disastrous cause”.
“We have already given a lot, while our country continues to suffer socio-economic losses from this bloody war,” Radev said on Wednesday, defending the government’s decision.
An economic or political decision?
However, while highlighting the economic consequences of the war for Bulgaria, Radev did not focus on the fact that military aid supplied from state reserves has largely been reimbursed through the European Peace Facility (EPF).
In response to a DW inquiry, the Defense Ministry said Bulgaria received more than €3 million ($3.47 million) from the EPF in 2025 and 2026.
In addition, tripartite agreements generated over €200 million for the ministry’s budget. According to the ministry, more than half of that amount was used to help cover the state budget deficit.
“Through this mechanism, the Bulgarian army and the Defense Ministry received additional funds that could be reinvested in military modernization projects,” former Defense Minister Todor Tagarev told DW.
The country’s private defense industry has also significantly expanded sales and, according to Peter Dilov, the Economics Minister at the time, was due to account for more than 4% of Bulgaria’s GDP in 2024.
During Tagarev’s tenure between 2023 and 2024, Bulgaria began supplying its old Soviet-era weapons and received modern NATO-standard military equipment in exchange.
Given the existing export ban on what Tagarev calls “obsolete weapons,” “Bulgaria is now losing this opportunity,” he told DW.
nature of export
Nadezhda Neyansky, who was foreign minister from 1997 to 2001 and then moved into a caretaker role earlier this year, confirmed this, telling DW, “Military aid to Ukraine does not reduce the capabilities of the Bulgarian military, in fact, it enhances them.”
While complete data on arms exports is classified, Bulgarian official state supplies to Ukraine have in the past included 100 BTR-60PB armored personnel carriers, along with their weapons and spare parts, as well as defective missiles for S-300 surface-to-air systems for use as repair or spare parts.
In addition to military equipment, Bulgaria also exported large quantities of Soviet-made artillery shells. These were in high demand in Ukraine in the early stages of the war, before Ukrainian forces switched to Western-standard weapons.
In March 2026, Bulgaria’s acting Prime Minister Andrey Gurov and Foreign Minister Nayansky signed a security cooperation agreement with Ukraine, strengthening defense ties between the two countries.
Although the move was criticized by Rumen Radev and Bulgaria’s pro-Russian parties, who argued that it exceeded the mandate of the caretaker government, Neyansky told DW that the agreement represents an opportunity to modernize the Bulgarian military through access to “cutting-edge defense technology” developed in Ukraine.
Domestic benefits of ban on arms exports
Before being elected with an absolute majority in April, the first achieved by a Bulgarian prime minister since 1997, Rumen Radev had campaigned on a platform of fighting corruption, lowering prices and what he described as a “pragmatic” approach to foreign affairs.
Although he declared that he would not veto any EU decision in support of Ukraine, he has criticized Europe for failing to achieve diplomatic breakthroughs with Russia.
While Radev has been cautious in his initial meetings with European leaders since taking office, his message at home that domestic priorities should come before additional military and financial aid to Kiev appears to be resonating with part of Bulgarian society.
According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, 66% of Bulgarians oppose financing arms purchases for Ukraine, compared to 39% across the EU as a whole, although support for the bloc remains high in Bulgaria.
“I think these statements are primarily for domestic use – for Russophile voters of progressive Bulgaria, to maintain the view that we do not want to harm Russia’s interests,” Tagarev told DW.
Neither the President of the European Commission nor the President of the European Council have commented on Bulgaria’s change in policy.
But for Neyanski, such decisions, which diverge from Bulgaria’s recent policy course, harm the country’s long-term reputation.
“The message is being sent to our partners: ‘You can’t trust us,'” he said. “And this war will end, and participation in the reconstruction of Ukraine will be possible only for countries that are trusted.”
Edited by: Angiel Flanagan